FrozenNorth
Hero
Why do you think quoting a random post on the internet would give your argument any weight?
D&D General Fighting Law and Order
- Thread starter bloodtide
- Start date
- Status
FrozenNorth
Hero
I think the situation is more nuanced than that. The way the RPG book presents things, the person from whom you learned DMing, the way peers and the community react and/or consider normal, all this has an influence in how DMs are formed and how they act in corner cases.
You have to admit that there is difference between someone being able to point to the DM guide where it says “the DM decides these issues…” and a DM guide that states “the table decides these issues…”.
There is a difference but there are many nuances also and book authority is only one of them and only goes so far.
@FrozenNorth I think I need to elaborate more. There is a wide variance of what individual players might accept in terms of DM authority and style that one might not like or accept in another but will accept in a given DM because of their other qualities.
A DM that is perceived as fair and fun will get more leeway as to odd views or quirky rulings than another DM who is considered capricious.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
They certainly do say things very like it.
Never said that.
Never said there wouldn't be.
No, I keep insisting that it would, and I want to make this extremely clear,
HELP.
Rules do not make bad behavior go away. They HELP address bad behavior. Rules do not turn ordinary people into saints. They HELP deal with problematic behavior. Rules do not instill moral virtue. They HELP guide people toward more productive behavior. And this is something with lots, and lots, and LOTS of good, solid, scientific evidence behind it. Well-made, reasonable rules, when coupled with good communication and positive feedback mechanisms, actually do improve behavior. It won't make every single person definitely always 100% absolutely perfect, but it DOES make things better.An absolute refusal to even consider the useful benefits of these things is exactly what I'm talking about. Just because rules do not MAKE people automatically and inherently perfect, they must obviously be completely ignored as a component of addressing the problems of bad behavior. As usual, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and since perfect is unattainable, good is thrown out the window along with it.
Last edited:
Redwizard007
Adventurer
All evidence to the contrary. Men who live violent lives and are used to using the sword (or gun) to solve problems seem to have little regard for the lives of anyone they see as "other." Is this less common in the world today? Maybe. Certainly, it is less accepted in polite society, but in the criminal underworld or other places where the government is less of a concern than the local strong-man this kind of mindset still exists. When OP made the town guards the obvious enemy, he positioned them in a way that would more likely than not lead to their violent death.
The following are examples of exactly the kind of people that we would today consider freaking lunatics, but were (mostly) par for the course in their own periods. These are men whom people followed, allied with, and idolized. In several cases, they have even been immortalized as heroes. I'm going to spoiler these because its freaking horrifying, but ta-da.
In his book Devastation of the Indies, Fray Bartolome de Las Casas wrote about conquistadors training dogs to attack natives:
The Spaniards train their fierce dogs to attack, kill and tear to pieces the Indians... The Spaniards keep alive their dogs' appetite for human beings in this way. They have Indians brought to them in chains, then unleash the dogs. The Indians come meekly down the roads and are killed. And the Spaniards have butcher shops where the corpses of Indians are hung up, on display, and someone will come in and say, more or less,"Give me a quarter of that rascal hanging there, to feed my dogs until I can kill another one for them."
The conquistadors' brutality wasn't limited to native soldiers, or even adults. According to contemporary reports by Spanish priest Fray Bartolome de Las Casas:
They snatcht young Babes from the Mothers Breasts, and then dasht out the brains of those innocents against the Rocks; others they cast into Rivers scoffing and jeering them, and call'd upon their Bodies when falling with derision, the true testimony of their Cruelty, to come to them, and inhumanely exposing others to their Merciless Swords, together with the Mothers that gave them Life.
There is an immage with this one, but I'm not sharing that. Google if you want to.
In his book The Devastation of the Indies, Bartolome de Las Casas wrote that conquistadors would cut "...off their hands and [hang] them round the victim's neck"
In one horrific episode in Fray Bartolome de Las Casas's book The Devastation of the Indies, he wrote of a group of native Indians who had given a great deal of gold to the Spanish.
Afterward, the conquistadors "shut them up in three big houses, crowding in as many as they could, then set fire to the houses, burning alive all that were in them..."
The Spaniards train their fierce dogs to attack, kill and tear to pieces the Indians... The Spaniards keep alive their dogs' appetite for human beings in this way. They have Indians brought to them in chains, then unleash the dogs. The Indians come meekly down the roads and are killed. And the Spaniards have butcher shops where the corpses of Indians are hung up, on display, and someone will come in and say, more or less,"Give me a quarter of that rascal hanging there, to feed my dogs until I can kill another one for them."
The conquistadors' brutality wasn't limited to native soldiers, or even adults. According to contemporary reports by Spanish priest Fray Bartolome de Las Casas:
They snatcht young Babes from the Mothers Breasts, and then dasht out the brains of those innocents against the Rocks; others they cast into Rivers scoffing and jeering them, and call'd upon their Bodies when falling with derision, the true testimony of their Cruelty, to come to them, and inhumanely exposing others to their Merciless Swords, together with the Mothers that gave them Life.
There is an immage with this one, but I'm not sharing that. Google if you want to.
In his book The Devastation of the Indies, Bartolome de Las Casas wrote that conquistadors would cut "...off their hands and [hang] them round the victim's neck"
In one horrific episode in Fray Bartolome de Las Casas's book The Devastation of the Indies, he wrote of a group of native Indians who had given a great deal of gold to the Spanish.
Afterward, the conquistadors "shut them up in three big houses, crowding in as many as they could, then set fire to the houses, burning alive all that were in them..."
Pedro the Cruel of Castile
He was said to have killed a man for looking at him the wrong way, burned a woman alive for rejecting his advances and obtained a gem by robbing and murdering a guest in his own home. (A gem that is now part of the English crown jewels.) He also had his wife assassinated via a crossbow bolt to the eye.
Edward III of England
He had the Earl of Salisbury, a close friend, sent off to fight a foreign war so he could violently rape the man's wife. A contemporary account reports that the poor lady was left "lying in a swoon, bleeding from the nose and mouth and other parts."
Cardinal Robert of Geneva
At the Cesena, where its citizens had protested when his army confiscated supplies without payment. Robert vowed on his own sacred office to pardon the men of the town if they laid down their arms. Then -- crying out "Blood and more blood!" -- he ordered mercenaries to close the city gates and massacre the inhabitants, thereby earning himself the epithet "the Butcher of Cesena." Somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 civilians were slaughtered and much of the town was wantonly and pointlessly destroyed.
Raynald of Chatillon (yes, the guy in Kingdom of Heaven was based on a real guy.)
He captured and tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch. He made plundering raids against the caravans travelling near his domains. He built a fleet of five ships which plundered the coast of the Red Sea, threatening the route of the Muslim pilgrims towards Mecca. Raynald attacked a caravan travelling from Egypt to Syria in late 1186 or early 1187, claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem did not bind him.
John Hawkwood
His White Company roamed the countryside, robbing the commonfolk, raping women and kidnapping hostages for ransom. Hawkwood once happened upon two of his soldiers fighting over who would get to rape a nun, and he cut the woman in half with his sword to resolve the quarrel.
Philip IV of France
The man who sized the wealth of the Knights Templar, and had them brutally tortured and killed. For money.
Gilles de Rais - and for the record, people saw him as a monster even in his own time, but he did have accomplices...
He began killing peasant children in the early 1430s to facilitate rituals intended to restore his fortune. This, however, quickly evolved into a sadistic sexual fetish that he indulged with several accomplices. There may have been 200 victims.
Crusaders & Burghers
The Mainz attack on May 25, 1096. European crusaders vs. Jewish women and children.
After only two days Mainz burghers grew weary of disrupting their lives for the sake of the Jews; they opened the gates and the carnage began. Seven hundred Jews died, according to a contemporary writer—men, women, and children.
The crusaders taking of Jerusalem
In the words of a contemporary Christian writer, “The Christians gave over their whole hearts to the slaughter, so that not a suckling male child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape alive the hand of the murderer.”
He was said to have killed a man for looking at him the wrong way, burned a woman alive for rejecting his advances and obtained a gem by robbing and murdering a guest in his own home. (A gem that is now part of the English crown jewels.) He also had his wife assassinated via a crossbow bolt to the eye.
Edward III of England
He had the Earl of Salisbury, a close friend, sent off to fight a foreign war so he could violently rape the man's wife. A contemporary account reports that the poor lady was left "lying in a swoon, bleeding from the nose and mouth and other parts."
Cardinal Robert of Geneva
At the Cesena, where its citizens had protested when his army confiscated supplies without payment. Robert vowed on his own sacred office to pardon the men of the town if they laid down their arms. Then -- crying out "Blood and more blood!" -- he ordered mercenaries to close the city gates and massacre the inhabitants, thereby earning himself the epithet "the Butcher of Cesena." Somewhere between 2,500 and 5,000 civilians were slaughtered and much of the town was wantonly and pointlessly destroyed.
Raynald of Chatillon (yes, the guy in Kingdom of Heaven was based on a real guy.)
He captured and tortured Aimery of Limoges, Latin Patriarch of Antioch. He made plundering raids against the caravans travelling near his domains. He built a fleet of five ships which plundered the coast of the Red Sea, threatening the route of the Muslim pilgrims towards Mecca. Raynald attacked a caravan travelling from Egypt to Syria in late 1186 or early 1187, claiming that the truce between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem did not bind him.
John Hawkwood
His White Company roamed the countryside, robbing the commonfolk, raping women and kidnapping hostages for ransom. Hawkwood once happened upon two of his soldiers fighting over who would get to rape a nun, and he cut the woman in half with his sword to resolve the quarrel.
Philip IV of France
The man who sized the wealth of the Knights Templar, and had them brutally tortured and killed. For money.
Gilles de Rais - and for the record, people saw him as a monster even in his own time, but he did have accomplices...
He began killing peasant children in the early 1430s to facilitate rituals intended to restore his fortune. This, however, quickly evolved into a sadistic sexual fetish that he indulged with several accomplices. There may have been 200 victims.
Crusaders & Burghers
The Mainz attack on May 25, 1096. European crusaders vs. Jewish women and children.
After only two days Mainz burghers grew weary of disrupting their lives for the sake of the Jews; they opened the gates and the carnage began. Seven hundred Jews died, according to a contemporary writer—men, women, and children.
The crusaders taking of Jerusalem
In the words of a contemporary Christian writer, “The Christians gave over their whole hearts to the slaughter, so that not a suckling male child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape alive the hand of the murderer.”
Ivar the Boneless
Ivar executed King Ælla in the world’s most excruciating way (torture) for killing his father. As Simeon of Durham, an English writer of the time, would later put it, “The (Ivar's) army raided here and there and filled every place with bloodshed and sorrow.” When the Heathen Army later moved to conquer East Anglia, Ivar put its ruler, King Edmund, through such an arduous, painful death that the Christians sainted the fallen king, “Edmund the Martyr” — the king had been beaten, bound in iron chains, tied to a tree, and shot with so many arrows he’d resembled a porcupine. Then, his head was cut off and tossed into the brambles.
Erik the Red
Erik found himself in temporary exile after murdering two neighbours who killed his slaves. Another bloodthirsty rampage ensued when Erik returned from exile to retrieve some personal possessions.
Ivar executed King Ælla in the world’s most excruciating way (torture) for killing his father. As Simeon of Durham, an English writer of the time, would later put it, “The (Ivar's) army raided here and there and filled every place with bloodshed and sorrow.” When the Heathen Army later moved to conquer East Anglia, Ivar put its ruler, King Edmund, through such an arduous, painful death that the Christians sainted the fallen king, “Edmund the Martyr” — the king had been beaten, bound in iron chains, tied to a tree, and shot with so many arrows he’d resembled a porcupine. Then, his head was cut off and tossed into the brambles.
Erik the Red
Erik found himself in temporary exile after murdering two neighbours who killed his slaves. Another bloodthirsty rampage ensued when Erik returned from exile to retrieve some personal possessions.
No specific examples here. Just awful practices that were common enough to get names.
Inuoumono- target practice on dogs.
Tameshigiri- testing swords. Usually on rolled mats. Sometimes on criminals.
Tsujigiri- killing random people at crossroads at night.
Kiri-sute gomen- killing people they felt insulted by.
Inuoumono- target practice on dogs.
Tameshigiri- testing swords. Usually on rolled mats. Sometimes on criminals.
Tsujigiri- killing random people at crossroads at night.
Kiri-sute gomen- killing people they felt insulted by.
John Wesley Hardin
He stabbed a classmate as a schoolboy, killed a man during an argument at 15 and dozens of other people. He even hired an assassin to kill the husband of a lady he was crushing on.
Wyatt Erp
Shot Tom Pinard for mocking him. Failed to turn over funds he collected for a school (theft.) Stole horses. Changed amounts of money listed on legal documents (fraud.) Escaped jail. Was arrested for pimping twice. Beat up a marshal who accused him of nepotism. Was fined for slapping around prostitutes, and was repeatedly forced to deal with the legal issues for killing men, though was never convicted. In addition, his famous OK Corral shootout and Vendetta Ride were sketchy at best, from a legal perspective.
Doc Holliday
Stabbed Bud Ryan in a fight over gambling. Beat Henry Kahn with his cane. Shot at bartender Charles White, but only grazed him. May have killed Private Robert Smith. Probably killed Mike Gordon for talking naughty word. Was accused (probably falsely) of robbing a stagecoach. Was convicted of shooting 2 men in a saloon.
He stabbed a classmate as a schoolboy, killed a man during an argument at 15 and dozens of other people. He even hired an assassin to kill the husband of a lady he was crushing on.
Wyatt Erp
Shot Tom Pinard for mocking him. Failed to turn over funds he collected for a school (theft.) Stole horses. Changed amounts of money listed on legal documents (fraud.) Escaped jail. Was arrested for pimping twice. Beat up a marshal who accused him of nepotism. Was fined for slapping around prostitutes, and was repeatedly forced to deal with the legal issues for killing men, though was never convicted. In addition, his famous OK Corral shootout and Vendetta Ride were sketchy at best, from a legal perspective.
Doc Holliday
Stabbed Bud Ryan in a fight over gambling. Beat Henry Kahn with his cane. Shot at bartender Charles White, but only grazed him. May have killed Private Robert Smith. Probably killed Mike Gordon for talking naughty word. Was accused (probably falsely) of robbing a stagecoach. Was convicted of shooting 2 men in a saloon.
Side note: This crap was hard to google, because so many of these people and events were made into movies and TV shows. Pulling out the obviously sensationalized stuff was fun. Also, apologies for the late response. I had family over all weekend.
In a game like D&D, where the DM has near full authority (from a game and rules perspective), it's ALL about trust.
The players have to trust the DM has the fun of the table in mind.
If they (the players) don't trust. it's likely to be a subpar experience for everyone at the table.
Thinking about it, one of the ways games like DungeonWorld try to help, is they split the responsibility. The DM is, in many ways, constrained by what he can do by the moves that the players make (the DM can't make certain moves unless he is reacting to moves made by players). As such the trust is split, where everyone at the table is trusting that the moves made are for the fun of everyone else at the table. Of course, this split of authority is anathema to certain gamers, so only works at certain tables.
Mod Note:
@Flamestrike and @AbdulAlhazred
Right now, both of you are bucking for ejection from the discussion for the hostilities.
Show rather more resect for each other, everyone.
@Flamestrike and @AbdulAlhazred
Right now, both of you are bucking for ejection from the discussion for the hostilities.
Show rather more resect for each other, everyone.
Vaalingrade
Legend
It can, but usually doesn't.
So there's a single layered afterlife for people who die on the prime. The first layer is a spiritual copy of the material with its topography affected by psycho-emotional connections formed to specific areas on the material. People here are those still attached to their lives, forming societies and trying to resist the call of the bottom layer, the Well of Souls where souls got to be reincarnated.
As this connection fades, these souls descend into fissures in the top layer and enter a set of wandering catacombs where they introspect on their lives. They eventually arrive in a layer where those who are no longer attached to their former life, but not yet ready to return to the well live in a number of communities more adapted to no longer being alive and needing sustenance.
Eventually, they find themselves ready and reincarnate.
What the living world understands about this is skewed by the fact that it is very difficult to enter and leave the afterlife and any memories are dreamlike and easily forgotten. From these accounts, people imagine that the afterworld is a path of perdition with the central layers being known ad the Seven Interlocking Hells and that 'pure' souls go straight to the Well.
This means any PC trips to the afterlife is a constant series of contravened expectations and then you forget most of it when you get back.
I agree, trust is central and trust must be earned and to a certain extent trust must be reciprocated.
- Status
Similar Threads
